ARTICLE 82 SOLICITATION

What does Article 82 prohibit? Can words alone lead to a charge?
• Article 82 punishes anyone who solicits another to commit a UCMJ offense.
• Spoken or written words encouraging criminal conduct may be enough to charge.

Does the crime need to be carried out? Must the other person follow through?
• No, the offense is complete once the solicitation occurs.
• Whether or not the crime happens does not affect guilt.

What is considered solicitation under Article 82?
• Solicitation includes asking, urging, or encouraging someone to commit a crime.
• It can be direct, indirect, verbal, written, or conveyed through behavior.

Does intent matter in solicitation charges?
• Yes, prosecutors must prove the accused intended the crime to occur.
• Joking or hypothetical statements may not qualify without clear intent.

What offenses can be solicited under Article 82?
• It applies to crimes under the UCMJ punishable by court-martial.
• These include murder, desertion, sexual assault, theft, and drug distribution.

Can military members solicit subordinates or superiors?
• Yes, Article 82 applies regardless of rank or command relationship.
• Soliciting anyone to break military law is punishable under this article.

What if the person solicited refuses? Is that a defense?
• No, refusal to act does not protect the person who made the request.
• The charge is based on the act of solicitation, not the outcome.

How do courts determine if solicitation occurred?
• Courts examine the language used, context, and surrounding behavior.
• Explicit encouragement or repeated attempts strengthen the prosecution’s case.

Are there defenses to solicitation charges?
• Lack of intent, mistaken identity, or insufficient evidence may be defenses.
• If the communication was unclear or non-criminal, charges may not hold.

Can solicitation be paired with other offenses?
• Yes, it is often charged alongside conspiracy, attempt, or misconduct.
• These combinations increase potential penalties.

What are the punishments under Article 82?
• Penalties vary by the offense solicited and may include:
• Dishonorable or bad conduct discharge
• Reduction in rank
• Total forfeiture of pay and allowances
• Confinement (up to life, depending on the solicited crime)

Is solicitation treated seriously even if done in private?
• Yes, private texts, conversations, or social media can all be evidence.
• Military courts do not require public or overt actions for prosecution.

Can sarcasm or venting lead to solicitation charges?
• If the context …

UCMJ Article 81 Conspiracy

What is conspiracy under Article 81? Does a crime have to occur?
• Conspiracy means agreeing with others to commit a military offense.
• No actual crime or harm must happen for charges to be filed.

Does the plan need to succeed? Can talking alone lead to charges?
• Success is not required; one overt act moves it from talk to action.
• Even a small step, like sending a message, may trigger prosecution.

What qualifies as an agreement? Must it be in writing or spoken aloud?
• Agreements can be implied from actions, shared goals, or patterns.
• Written proof is not needed; behavior and intent may be inferred.

Is specific intent important for conspiracy? Can you be guilty by association?
• Specific intent to join the plan is required for conviction.
• Presence alone is not enough; the government must prove shared purpose.

What is an overt act in conspiracy cases? Must it be illegal itself?
• The overt act supports the plan but does not need to be illegal.
• Examples include making calls, sending emails, or transporting people.

Can neutral behavior count as an overt act? What if it seems innocent?
• Yes, even lawful acts may be used if tied to the plan.
• Timing and context determine whether the act advances the conspiracy.

What are chain and wheel conspiracies? How do roles affect guilt?
• Chain conspiracies connect people in a sequence, often for drugs.
• Wheel conspiracies center around one person dealing with many others.

Can you be charged for not completing the act? What if you did nothing?
• Yes, if you agreed to the plan and someone acted on it.
• Personal participation in the act is not required for guilt.

Which crimes are commonly linked to Article 81 conspiracy?
• Common pairings include fraud, drug offenses, theft, and assault.
• Prosecutors use conspiracy to expand the number of accused parties.

What is the punishment under Article 81? Does it match the intended crime?
• Punishment usually equals the maximum sentence for the planned offense.
• Penalties include discharge, rank reduction, confinement, and forfeiture.

What are defenses against conspiracy charges? Can misunderstanding be enough?
• No agreement, no intent, or withdrawal before the act are defenses.
• Wharton’s Rule may also apply when only two parties are required.

What if you backed out of the plan early? Can you still be …

UCMJ Article 80 Attempts

ARTICLE 80 ATTEMPTS

What does Article 80 cover? Is failing to finish a crime still punishable?
• Article 80 punishes attempts to commit military offenses, even if the crime was not completed.
• The accused must take a substantial step toward committing the offense.

Does intent matter under Article 80? Can someone be charged without purpose?
• Intent is critical; the accused must have specific intent to commit the offense.
• Lack of intent or mistaken purpose may be a defense.

Is preparation enough for a conviction? What must the act include?
• Mere preparation is not enough; the act must move toward completion.
• A substantial and direct step must be taken to qualify as an attempt.

Can someone be convicted if the crime was actually completed?
• Yes, Article 80 allows conviction for attempt even if the full crime occurred.
• The prosecution may argue both attempt and completion occurred.

What must prosecutors prove for guilt? Does the act need to be close to the final result?
• They must prove an overt act, specific intent, and a substantial step.
• Proximity to the intended result helps show the seriousness of the attempt.

What is “factual impossibility” and is it a defense?
• Factual impossibility means the crime could not succeed due to unknown facts.
• It is not a defense if the accused believed the act would work.

When does preparation become an attempt? What are the key signals?
• Placing tools, entering the location, or starting the offense may be attempts.
• Acts like lighting a fuse or pulling a trigger confirm the shift from planning.

What are lesser included offenses under Article 80?
• Lesser included offenses are crimes like assault or false imprisonment.
• They may be charged if the full attempt charge cannot be proven.

Are punishments severe for attempts? Can they match completed crimes?
• Yes, punishments can equal the full offense, except for capital crimes.
• Attempted murder and similar offenses may still carry long sentences.

Can someone be convicted based only on circumstantial actions?
• Courts often evaluate the nature and clarity of the action taken.
• Strong indirect evidence of intent and action may support conviction.

Does every attempt need a physical act? Can intent and planning alone be punished?
• Physical action is required; thoughts and plans are not punishable alone.
• The act must show an unambiguous …

UCMJ Article 78: What It Means to Be an Accessory After the Fact

UCMJ Article 78 punishes anyone who helps another person avoid consequences after a military crime. Even if you did not commit the original offense, helping after the fact can lead to severe penalties.

What does Article 78 cover? Do you have to commit the original crime?
• It covers helping someone after they committed a military offense.
• You do not need to commit the original crime to be charged.

Can helping a friend get you charged? Does motive matter?
• Helping a friend escape consequences can lead to Article 78 charges.
• Your motive, such as loyalty, does not change the charge.

Does silence make you an accessory? Can you be prosecuted for not speaking up?
• Silence can be seen as protecting someone and used against you.
• Prosecutors may claim you intended to help by staying quiet.

Is deleting evidence enough for a charge? Must you directly block investigators?
• Destroying or hiding evidence qualifies for Article 78.
• You do not have to physically block investigators.

What must prosecutors prove? Is intent required?
• They must show a crime happened, you knew about it, and you helped.
• Intent to help avoid punishment is necessary.

Can you be convicted for a mistake? Does confusion or fear excuse you?
• Honest mistakes or confusion usually are not enough to convict.
• The court focuses on what you knew and meant to do.

Is Article 78 risky for the innocent? Can you be punished for trying to help?
• Yes, many are charged for actions done out of confusion or loyalty.
• The law focuses on results, not just your good intentions.

Is lying to investigators needed for a charge? Is direct interference required?
• Lying is not needed; simply helping someone is enough.
• You do not need to directly interfere with an investigation.

Can texts or private conversations be used as evidence? Does intent have to be stated?
• Messages, conversations, and behavior can all be evidence.
• Prosecutors can argue intent even if you never said it outright.

Can trying to quietly solve a problem lead to charges? Do good intentions protect you?
• Handling things quietly instead of reporting can look like accessory conduct.
• Good intentions do not prevent prosecution if you helped someone avoid justice.

What punishments can you get under Article 78? Do penalties depend on the original crime?
• You …

Can You Join the Military with a Criminal Record?

Thinking about joining the military but worried about your criminal history? This guide answers the most important questions about military enlistment and criminal records, explaining what is possible, what is not, and what you need to know to make informed decisions.

  1. Can you join the military with any type of criminal record? Are there some convictions that block you completely?
    • Some convictions, such as violent felonies and drug trafficking, make you permanently ineligible.
    • Other convictions may be considered for waivers depending on the situation.
  2. What happens at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) regarding your background? Does the recruiter directly interview you about your criminal record?
    • Your full criminal background is checked and discussed with a recruiter.
    • Any record found is reviewed to determine if you can move forward with enlistment.
  3. Which specific offenses result in automatic disqualification from military service? Are any of these eligible for waivers?
    • Crimes like aggravated assault, arson, or statutory rape cannot be waived.
    • Two or more recent DUIs or drug trafficking also lead to permanent disqualification.
  4. What is a criminal record waiver? For which types of offenses might you need one?
    • A waiver allows you to enlist after certain convictions such as burglary or minor assault.
    • The most serious offenses, like violent felonies, are never eligible for waivers.
  5. Does being on probation or parole affect your eligibility to enlist? Can you apply while still under judicial restraint?
    • You cannot enlist if you are on probation, parole, or under judicial restraint.
    • All court obligations must be completed before you can apply.
  6. Why does the military care about moral character? What problems could arise if this is overlooked?
    • The military wants to avoid discipline or security problems from new recruits.
    • Moral character checks help maintain trust, safety, and good order.
  7. Does a juvenile offense impact military eligibility differently than an adult conviction? Can juvenile records ever be overlooked?
    • Juvenile offenses are usually seen as less serious than adult convictions.
    • The military may overlook them if you show clear rehabilitation.
  8. How do staffing needs in the military affect waiver acceptance? Are standards always the same?
    • When more recruits are needed, the military may be more flexible with waivers.
    • Stricter standards are applied when there is no recruiting shortage.
  9. What documents are required when applying for a criminal waiver? Do personal statements
…

SERP Analysis: UCMJ Article 120 – Military Sexual Assault Content Visibility

The search results for “UCMJ Article 120” show a highly saturated legal content environment centered around rape and sexual assault charges within the military justice system. This is one of the most frequently targeted military legal queries, and the competition reflects both urgency and legal complexity. Nearly every result in the top 100 comes from either defense firms, official military resources, or educational/legal institutions offering definitions and consequences.

1. Content Source Breakdown

  • Private law firms dominate the results, especially well-known names like Jordan UCMJ Law, UCMJLaw(.)com, McLain Military Lawyer, and Gonzalez & Waddington. These firms frame Article 120 as one of the most serious and career-ending charges.
  • Government and military domains (.gov, .mil) such as SAPR.mil, House.gov, and AFJAG.af.mil provide legal definitions, procedural explanations, and policy references.
  • Academic and nonprofit publications from institutions like Harvard Law, George Washington University, and Protect Our Defenders contribute broader systemic critiques and policy analysis.
  • Video content is used extensively by law firms to reach emotional and informational decision points, often embedded with specific Article 120 cases or defense strategies.

2. Recurring Snippet Themes

  • Maximum punishment language: Most firms cite dishonorable discharge, loss of benefits, long-term confinement, and lifetime sex offender registration.
  • Burden of proof focus: Multiple sites mention that military sexual assault convictions may occur with minimal physical evidence or eyewitness testimony.
  • Statutory structure: UCMJ Article 120 is consistently outlined with subsections for rape, aggravated sexual contact, and abusive sexual contact.
  • Comparison and strategy: Some results compare Article 120 with Article 125 (sodomy) or Article 134 (adultery), positioning defense through procedural nuance.

3. User Intent and CTA Alignment

  • Defense-seeking users are clearly targeted. Most content is directed at active-duty service members under investigation or recently charged.
  • Consultation offers are aggressive: Calls to action such as “contact now,” “90 percent acquittal rate,” or “former JAG prosecutor available” are highly visible.
  • Little educational pathing: While the law is quoted or summarized, few pages walk the user through what actually happens after an accusation is made.

4. Observed Content Structure

  • Article-based content clustering is common, with entire subdomains or sections of websites built around Article 120 and its subarticles (like 120b for child sexual offenses).
  • PDFs and manuals from military and federal sources present full legal texts without interpretation or engagement tools.
  • Multimedia expansion includes explanatory videos, testimonial narratives, and downloadable strategy guides, but only on a few select
…

SERP Analysis: “Military Crimes” Search Results and Content Structure

The keyword “military crimes” brings up a unique blend of legal references, policy explanations, institutional frameworks, and defense-related legal services. Unlike “war crimes,” which primarily return international humanitarian law topics, the “military crimes” SERP is centered around offenses committed by service members under the jurisdiction of military law, especially as defined by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The analysis below is based exclusively on the titles, snippets, and URL structures shown on the results page.

1. Content Type Breakdown

  • UCMJ-focused legal content: Pages from domains like ucmjlaw(.)com and mcmilitarylaw(.)com explain military-specific offenses such as desertion, AWOL, insubordination, and failure to follow orders.
  • Government and .mil sources: Justice.gov, vwac.defense.gov, and military justice portals provide insights into prosecution processes, court-martial systems, and procedural overviews.
  • Legal service providers: Sites like aaronmeyerlaw(.)com and mclainmilitarylawyer(.)com offer legal representation for charges related to military misconduct, often listing covered offenses.
  • Educational and reference entries: Platforms like Justia and LII (law.cornell.edu) supply statutory information about military-specific offenses and how they differ from civilian crimes.
  • Media examples: A few results include news articles or reports about active-duty service members charged with violent crimes, drugs, or sexual misconduct.

2. Common Themes and Offense Types in Snippets

  • Frequent mentions include AWOL (Article 86), desertion, sexual misconduct, insubordination, unauthorized absence, and disrespect toward superiors.
  • Several snippets also reference court-martial eligibility, the scope of military justice, and civilian legal implications for military personnel.
  • A number of results highlight legal distinctions between general criminal law and offenses that are unique to active-duty service environments.

3. Content Structure and SEO Observations

  • Most visible service pages use direct titles like “Military Offenses Attorney,” “Types of Military Crimes,” or “UCMJ Defense Lawyer.”
  • The majority of legal websites group content by article or by category (e.g., sex crimes, violent crimes, drug charges).
  • Government pages usually appear as high-authority PDFs or summary portals without commercial structure, but offer strong definitional clarity.
  • Very few results are interactive or use modern UX elements such as dynamic offense lists or charge simulators.

4. Gaps and Opportunities

  • Comparative legal guidance is limited: There is little visible content comparing military offenses with civilian equivalents or explaining crossover scenarios.
  • No clear segmentation by branch: Most visible content is generic to the UCMJ and does not target Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines separately.
  • Lack
…

SERP Analysis: UCMJ Articles and Military Law Content Visibility

The search landscape for queries related to “UCMJ Articles” reflects a mix of legal service pages, informational hubs, government documentation, and firm-level SEO strategies. The most competitive pages revolve around the visibility of individual UCMJ articles, their explanations, and the legal consequences for violations. This analysis is based exclusively on what is displayed in the top-level Google search results including titles, URLs, snippets, and rich results.

1. Dominant Content Types

  • Article reference indexes: Sites like ucmj(.)us and mcmilitarylaw(.)com display lists of UCMJ articles with brief descriptors. These pages are structured as reference tools.
  • Firm-authored summaries: Legal sites such as www.jordanucmjlaw.com/articles-of-… and militarytrialdefenders(.)com provide article breakdowns including potential charges, defenses, and punishments.
  • Government sources: Documents from .mil and .gov domains present raw statutory language or PDF-format UCMJ appendices, often without contextual explanations.
  • Educational content: Wikipedia, AirForceWriter, Military(.)com, and Quizlet offer general overviews, often used as secondary research sources.

2. Observed Structural Patterns

  • Article clustering is visible across several domains, notably those of Joseph Jordan, Aaron Meyer, and Bilecki Law Group. These firms break content into pages per article (e.g. Article 86, Article 91, Article 120), often including definitions and case scenarios.
  • List-based formatting is the dominant visual structure. Pages use bullet points or section headers for fast scanning.
  • Snippets rarely provide procedural guidance. There is limited presence of user-focused content such as “what to expect,” “how to respond,” or “when to seek legal help.”

3. Keyword Density and Recurring Elements

  • Most referenced articles: Article 86 (AWOL), Article 92 (failure to obey orders), Article 120 (sexual assault), Article 134 (general misconduct).
  • Supporting themes: Common mentions include the total number of UCMJ articles (146 to 158), the difference between punitive and non-punitive sections, and specific case examples.
  • Search intent alignment: Users seeking to understand individual articles or locate quick definitions will find basic matches. However, users looking for strategic legal insight or scenario-based interpretation will find fewer suitable entries.

4. Gaps in User Experience and Content Differentiation

  • Lack of contextual narrative: The SERP is dominated by listicles and raw definitions. Few pages explain how a charge under Article X plays out in real court-martial proceedings.
  • Minimal content depth in government entries: PDFs and statute replicas exist but are dense and not easily interpreted by non-lawyers.
  • Few interactive or layered experiences: No snippet or title suggests tools like “article selection wizards,” self-assessment checklists,
…

UCMJ Lawyer SERP Structure: Competitive Visibility and Thematic Gaps

A review of the top 100 Google results for the search term “UCMJ lawyer” reveals a tightly clustered field of military defense firms focused on court-martial representation, Article 120 charges, and high-stakes disciplinary cases. The content observed on the search results page emphasizes urgency and legal authority but offers limited depth or topical variety. This analysis is based solely on what appears in titles, meta descriptions, and URLs. No assumptions have been made about page content that does not appear in the SERP.

1. Domain Behavior and Visibility

  • Private law firms such as ucmjlaw(.)com, ucmjdefense(.)com, and jordanucmjlaw.com appear multiple times with targeted landing pages.
  • Most domains highlight former JAG experience, military trial history, or federal law backgrounds to establish credibility.
  • A few listings include city or base names, such as Norfolk or Fort Bragg, but localized targeting remains inconsistent and infrequent.

2. Call-to-Action Consistency

  • Phrases like “Call Now,” “Free Consultation,” and “Speak with a Former Prosecutor” dominate the top entries.
  • These pages are built for high-conversion intent and rely heavily on trust signals, including trial experience and acquittal rates.
  • Visual elements such as YouTube previews are used by firms like Gonzalez & Waddington to enhance visibility but not to convey informational depth.

3. Content Structure and Clustering Patterns

  • Some firms, particularly jordanucmjlaw.com, use article-based clustering to present separate pages for Article 86, Article 91, and Article 120.
  • Most other domains present general military defense pages with little evidence of topic segmentation or internal linking.
  • Guides, timelines, or legal explanations are almost entirely absent from snippets, and no structured learning path is visible for users unfamiliar with the UCMJ process.

4. Alignment with User Intent

  • The SERP heavily targets users in immediate need of legal representation.
  • Very few results serve users in earlier research phases, such as those comparing civilian and military attorneys or seeking to understand discharge procedures.
  • Although a few snippets mention specific locations, there is no consistent local SEO pattern across the results.

5. Semantic Repetition and Messaging

  • Article 120 is the most commonly referenced UCMJ charge, especially in relation to sexual assault cases.
  • Supporting language often includes terms like “nationwide court-martial defense,” “former JAG officer,” and “aggressive legal counsel.”
  • Most results repeat the same value propositions, focusing on military credentials and the volume of past cases handled.

Final Insight

The search results for “UCMJ lawyer” reflect a conversion-heavy landscape where urgency, authority, and credentials are prioritized …

Military Attorney SERP Analysis: A Structured Review of Google’s First 100 Results

The search term “military attorney” returns a wide range of result types, including private law firms, government legal assistance sites, attorney directories, academic institutions, and media commentary. A close examination of the first 100 visible results reveals a pattern that heavily favors conversion-focused pages. This analysis is based solely on titles, URLs, and meta descriptions shown on the search engine results page. No assumptions are made about what may exist deeper within the websites themselves.

1. Types of Results Observed

  • Private law firms make up more than half of the SERP. These are usually run by former JAG officers or civilian attorneys offering military defense services.
  • Government sources such as Military OneSource, JAGCNET, and Navy.mil appear periodically. They provide basic legal resources but rarely direct users into specific services or guided workflows.
  • Attorney directories including Avvo, FindLaw, Justia, and Super Lawyers offer listings and comparison tools. Their presence is strong, but they contribute little to subject-matter understanding.
  • Bar associations and law schools appear occasionally. Examples include ABA and Stanford Law, mostly offering career insights or public legal education.
  • Media entries come from sources like YouTube and NPR, offering discussion or analysis but no actionable legal guidance.

2. Conversion-Heavy Snippet Patterns

  • Phrases like “Free Consultation,” “Call Now,” and “Experienced Military Defense Lawyer” dominate the top entries.
  • Titles and descriptions are designed for immediate lead generation rather than educational depth.
  • Most law firm pages previewed in the SERP are single-purpose landing pages, optimized for intake rather than explanation.

3. Informational Content Visibility

  • Very few snippets mention military law procedures or specific UCMJ articles.
  • Only a handful reference charges like Article 120, which would typically indicate more technical content.
  • Comparative and explanatory themes such as “Civilian vs JAG attorney” or “How court-martial works” are rare and not emphasized.

4. Local Targeting Signals Are Absent

  • None of the visible pages in the top 100 include geographic keywords in titles or descriptions.
  • There is no indication of location-specific landing pages, such as by state, base, or city.
  • This leaves a wide opening for localized military legal content that could match more precise user intent.

5. No Clear Topical Clustering

  • No site in the top 100 appears to organize its content by UCMJ article or case type.
  • There are no references to interconnected subpages or educational hubs designed around specific military legal topics.
  • The dominant content structure is single-page and non-relational, which limits depth
…